Judging behaviour

[Jerry Budd]

Thanks, I'll take that as a compliment!

Jerry

(who is now waiting for a comment concerning proctology from Dick Hanson!)


>Jerry,
>
>Funny, I started reading it without knowing the author, and about two
>paragraphs in I said to myself, "this sounds like Jerry."
>
>Great post.
>
>David
>
>-----Original Message-----
>From: discussion-request at nsrca.org
>[mailto:discussion-request at nsrca.org]On Behalf Of Jerry Budd
>Sent: Saturday, January 25, 2003 9:18 AM
>To: discussion at nsrca.org
>Subject: Re: Judging behaviour
>
>
>>Ah But there's the rub Precision, Smoothness, Positioning and Size
>>or Dimension are all subjective no specific downgrades exist
>>therefore the judge must take it upon himself to interpit the
>>meaning and apply the score based on his viewpoint. The rule book
>>does list all downgrades but one wonders if the most important items
>>should carry a definitive guide so the judge is aware of how they
>>should be applied? Are they applied after the listed downgrades are
>>deducted?  Or does the judge apply his own interpretation and add
>>additional downgrades or rewards in addition to those specifically
>>listed? This is something I have always wondered about but have
>>never been able to find the correct answer. Can anyone explain?
>>Buddy
>
>Hi Buddy,
>
>Considering that judging is itself an inherently subjective process,
>the applications of point deductions is also subjective.  However,
>saying that the four major areas of consideration for judging a
>competitors flight: Precision, Smoothness, Positioning,
>Size/Dimension, are all subjective with no specific downgrades would
>be incorrect.  The categories listed are simply prioritized groupings
>of the types of downgradable errors that a judge should be cognizant
>of, and prepared to deduct points for, when a maneuver has visible
>defects.
>
>Precision is simply the geometry of the maneuver.  Are the vertical
>lines vertical?  Are the rolls centered?  Roll rate constant?  Does
>the maneuver contain all the required elements (was it flown
>correctly)?  In most cases there are specific downgrades listed in
>the rule book for these and other types of geometry errors (the 1 pt
>per 15 deg deduction).
>
>Smoothness is the most subjective of all the downgradable categories.
>How do you put a number on it?  The answer is that you can't.  I look
>for individual discrete occurances of aircraft motion that aren't a
>necessary part of performing the required maneuver elements.  When I
>see them I deduct points in proportion to the frequency and magnitude
>of the deviations.  One of the biggest problems I see among our
>judges today is that many seem to place a greater emphasis on
>smoothness than either Precision/Geometry and Position.  A smoothly
>but incorrectly flown maneuver seems to consistently get a higher
>score than a maneuver flown with far better geometry and positioning,
>but not quite a smooth.  I think the reason is that smoothness is
>easy to see, whereas you have to work as a judge to pay attention to
>geometry and centering (especially for an inexperienced judge).  A
>smoothly flown, but error filled flight can also still "look good" to
>many, and lull the judge into thinking this is "a pretty good pilot"
>when in fact there are other downgrades present.  This is an area
>that needs a lot of work to correct.
>
>Positioning is (IMHO) the easiest downgrade of all to apply (distance
>out excepted).  If the maneuver is not centered the downgrade is 2
>pts per 1/4 maneuver width that the maneuver is flown off center.
>Period.  Also, there is NO deduction for flying in close.  It may be
>difficult for the pilot to keep it smooth and in the box (dependant
>on wind conditions, speed, maneuver size), but any downgrades noted
>must be due to errors in geometry, smoothness, and size.  Applying a
>downgrade for flying excessively far out is (again IMHO) the only
>difficult element in this grouping.  Trying to assess whether the
>plane is at or around 150-175 meters is difficult at best, if not an
>unreasonable task to ask of the judge.  Debating whether a plane is
>150 meters out or 175 meters out is like debating whether the wind is
>blowing 12 mph or 15 mph.  Without some way to measure it you can't
>tell whether it is or not! (but you can tell that one is greater than
>the other).  When judging I start deducting points when the maneuver
>flown is at a distance where visual acuity becomes compromised and I
>start having problems seeing the little things like wings level,
>heading in/out etc.
>
>I remember being at the '97 Team Trials overhearing a comment from
>one competitor that they thought that nearly everyone was flying
>inside the poles at about 135 meters.  This was around noon when the
>shadows created by the sun was projecting almost straight down the
>flight line, parallel to the direction of flight.  I asked this
>individual if he thought the plane in the air at the time was "in" or
>"out".  He responded "it's well in, at about 130 meters".  I asked
>him how was that possible when the planes shadow was tracing a path
>well outside of the center pole (Site 2 at Muncie has a slight
>upslope and it's easy to see this when the sun is shinning).  He
>didn't respond (to be honest I'm not sure he even understood my
>point).
>
>Size/Dimension is the proportion of one maneuver to the next, or
>within elements of more complex maneuvers.  There is some overlap in
>applied downgrades between Precision (aka Geometry) and
>Size/Dimension and one has to be careful that you don't deduct points
>twice for the same error.  An example of this would be a double
>immelman where the pilot exited higher than they entered due to the
>half loops being different (but constant) radius's (also assume for
>this example that the level flight segments were level).  There is a
>geometry erroe due to a sizing error within the same maneuver.  You
>don't take off additional points for this.  I know it's a subtle
>nuance but it does need to be mentioned as I have been asked about it
>in the past.
>
>
>My personal opinion concerning judging today is that the adoption of
>the "turnaround" format of flying has increased the workload on the
>judges immensely, to the point where it's questionable whether one
>can really perform the task at hand, consistently, and for any
>reasonable period of time.  I believe we need to develop a system
>where the judge isn't burdened with the math, they simply note the
>maneuver downgrades (including magnitude or severity) on a critique
>sheet, and we have a computer algorithm calculate the score.  I've
>been working on the concept (off and on, but more off than on) for
>some time now (since the 1989 Nats) and I'm thinking that now might
>be a good time to dust it off and see where this might lead.  Anyway.
>
>With all this you wonder why anyone would volunteer to judge.  The
>answer to that is without judges we'd be just sport flying, not
>competing.  And we do so love to compete!
>
>Thx, Jerry
>
>--
>___________
>Jerry Budd
>mailto:jbudd at qnet.com
>=====================================
># To be removed from this list, send a message to
># discussion-request at nsrca.org
># and put leave discussion on the first line of the body.
>#
>
>=====================================
># To be removed from this list, send a message to
># discussion-request at nsrca.org
># and put leave discussion on the first line of the body.
>#


-- 
___________
Jerry Budd
mailto:jbudd at qnet.com
=====================================
# To be removed from this list, send a message to 
# discussion-request at nsrca.org
# and put leave discussion on the first line of the body.
#